Tuesday, November 20, 2007

"Adoption urged"

Changes to the benefit system are being advocated as a way to lower the rate of teenage pregnancies.

Statistics released yesterday show teenage birth rates are on the rise again, with 30.2 births for every 1,000 15 to 19 year-olds.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says births to young mothers have become the state's problem, and it is wrong for mothers to be able to sit on the benefit until their child is 18 years-old. She says the benefit should have a limit of five years, as it does in the US.

She is also keen to see more young mothers encouraged to offer their baby up for adoption, as this is a better option for the child than raising it in a negative environment. She says if there is gang involvement, drug addiction or abuse it is not going to be healthy for a child.

Ms Mitchell says CYFS should be promoting adoption as an option for young mothers-to-be.

I was interviewed for this piece and said we could do what the US does and time limit the benefit to two years at any one time and five years over a lifetime. Personally I would go further by limiting any assistance to one year. Pre-DPB expectant and new mothers were helped through social security assistance. The major difference was it was discretionary and short-term. And it didn't provide an incentive.

41 comments:

Well said Lindsay. The anti adoption lobby has had its chance and muffed it. The welfare reforms are certainly paying off in the US - their "can do" attitude has got "can doer".

I would also link welfare assistance to certain standards of behaviour by both parent(s) and children, such as not taking drugs and shutting up in school classs, and milestoines such as reading an numeracy skills. this welfare for well behaved should alsoapply to the enormous amount of indirect welfare such as state rental subsidies and higher funding to lower decile schools.

The problem may not be the teens as much as the PARENTS. I've worked with the poor, particularly women and children, and so often the parents are a. on the dole themselves b. clueless as to how to parent.

Is adoption then a panacea? I think not. There is much negative sequalae for both a relinquishing mother and her child. That should be considered.

In my estimation, things of this nature often take care of themselves. You're right, what we want more of we subsidize, what we want less of, we tax.

Cash subsidies, state health insurance, and so on should be eliminated to reward this generational foolish behavior. In my estimation any state involvement should be limited to tracking down absentee parents and enforcing child support.

Here's an idea: Let's stop welfare all together. Then, individual families will have to take care of themselves, as they have until the last hundred years or so of socialist government programs.

Regarding adoption, I was separated from my parents for over 34 years by this wicked beast. I'd say that encouraging moms to keep their children is the way to go. Have any of you ever talked to a mom who has lost a child to adoption? It certainly doesn't help society when added to the woes of a mom is the fact that she loses a child. Current adoption practices are barbaric. I wholly support keeping natural families together. If a family cannot adopt the mother and the child, they should not adopt.

Trish may be onto something."Adopt" child and mother.Maybe only for a year or two, but some positive conditioning.The "adoptive (grand)parents" administer the DPB payments, help with study,part time work opportunities.A real hand up.

I was separated from my natural parents by means of adoption for 21 years. I don't recommend it under any circumstanced unless it's a last resort.Suggesting young women abandon their babies (adoption=legalized abandonment), isn't something that should be recommended to anyone.Let's find another solution and stop glamorizing taking people's kids away. Children belong with their biolical parents unless it's not at all possible. Babies need their mothers...PERIOD. Perhaps if our wonderful president stopped living in LA LA abstinance land, this problem wouldn't be escalating. Stop the problem before it happens. If it does.....kidnapping women's babies to put them in more "suitable" homes is certainly not the answer. In fact, it's the worst idea I've ever heard of.

I am only suggesting adoption as an option when the parent has no means (and often no ability) to raise their child. If we got rid of the DPB I believe the number of these situations would drop. My initial release was about how welfare encourages single parenthood but the media picked up the adoption suggestion as the primary thrust.

At the same time we wouldn't be having to chase thousands of liable fathers because, without the DPB far fewer girls and women would choose to become single parents.

Trish, I have seen far too many examples of women who abuse or neglect their children to accept that a child always belongs with its biological mother. You are an example of someone who had a very unhappy experience of adoption and I feel sad for you. But you aren't, by any means, typical.

I would echo what Lindsay said. there must have been a large of adoptees who had a good experience when it was common and bad experiences was probably not typical, but clearly more common than bad experinces being in a stable family.

But bad experiences are very common these days in single parent families, and one of the undoubtable causes is the extreme bias to always give the mother custody. Whereas the father would tend to go with a partner who would probably take the child under her wing and defend it like a mother lion, the mothers whose children have been abused or killed have tended to go from partner to partner until they hit on one that resents the child so much they harm them.

Again the presence of a child probalby holds the father's relationship together with the step mother whereas the child is a cause of friction between the biological mother and the new boyfriend.

In retrospect it is obvious but the policy analysts sure didn't see that coming.

WRT the idea of adopting the whole family I think that was mooted about a year ago and to a certain extent it is what is done with "open adoption". I guess the alternative to "feeling patronised" is paying their own way.

As a mother who had her son taken in the mid sixties because I was unmarried. I was young but with a little help and support I would have been fine.

As far as adoption goes it is not a panacea that everyone thinks it is. Adoption creates a lot of problems in our society starting with adoptee's that are hurt and feel like they weren't wanted.

OUR jails and mental institutions are full of adoptee's.

Separating a mother and baby to save money only creates another problem and if we don't help these young women we will be supporting our young adoptee's in mental hospitals and jails.

So where's all the savings? In the long run adoption destroys more than it builds.

Has our government EVER done any studies on the outcomes of these stranger adoptions..no way.

The adoption lobbyists are some of the strongest in our government.

Its all about money and of course the mother and child is expendable.

So Lindsey you say that bio parents are more abusive to their children. I think you need to check your facts, there are stats that say those that are not related to the child do more harm.

Have you even heard about adopters killing adoptee's there has been a whole lot of that especially Russian children.

It took me 26 years to find my son in a closed adoption system. That is truly and cruel and inhumane act. I didn't know if he was alive or dead. We both went through our lives missing and wanting to know each other.

And one more thing he didn't have a better life. He was lost to his family, a piece was missing.

He was raised by a single mom! Soon after acquiring my son she divorced.Don't tell me she didn't get help to support them.

And while we're at it lets stop giving adoption welfare to these serial adopters.

They are making money off of adoption. Abuse is a real problem when one takes kids in when they can receive monies to adopt.So instead of giving money to these people to adopt lets keep families together so they can remain whole. Whats the difference paying an adopter or helping a mom. Why should one get money over the other? If they truly want to adopt they need to support the child.

I'd like to see the research that shows prisons and mental institutions are full of adoptees. I know that children who have been passed from pillar to post through- out their lives, from fostercare to CYF homes, disproportionately end up in prison but that is not the same as being adopted into a stable family at birth.

The current govt is anti-adoption hence there are only around 300 a year, down from 4,000 in the early 70s. CYFS is also anti-adoption.

Show me where I said biological parents are more abusive to their children.

Lastly I agree that paying adoptive parents to rear children is also a bad idea. Unfortunately in the case of fostercare for children removed from homes where they are at risk, paying their carers is unavoidable.

Oh yes "stop giving adoption welfare to these serial adopters" reminded me of the other thing that is happening I believe - a lot of children are being fostered by solo parents. Many solo parents may be quite capable but IMHO this is not in the best interests of the children but is ideologically driven in the interests of solo parents.

Remember, relinquishment for adoption (for mothers of infants) is usually voluntary. In my work with the poor, the women who chose adoption for their infants were usually MORE mature, MORE stable, MORE head-on-straight than the women who came to us 3 months postpartum with a $300 cell phone, hair extensions, and an SUV needing baby formula.

I'm not sure that abuse of children by biological or adoptive parents is quantifiable or applicable to this discussion. There are simply too many confounding variables; not the least of which that those who choose adoption for their infants may be -- by virtue of choosing a more difficult path presented 'in the child's best interest -- likely less likely to abuse than those who wouldn't. Conjecture, yes, anecdotal, yes. See the story of the two women/one baby/King Solomon in the Bible if you need more conjecture.

Re- welfare for serial adopters, this may refer to the U.S. practice of a $10,000 USD tax credit to those who adopt. $10K USD would usually go a long way toward improving the lives of a mother/baby pair.

We seem to be consumed by a "one size fits all" approach.Whatever course is followed there will be regrets and recriminations amongst some, if not many.However, regrets and recriminations occur also amongst those who have little or none of the trauma involved here.What works for some does not always work for others.

So if a young woman gets raped and pregnant or finds out she is pregnant through an accident and decides she wants to keep her child and we take away all support for her then its too bad honey, you will just have to suffer for the rest of your life when you have your child taken from you and put up for adoption because people in higher places decided to take away your support. Yeah, I see that being a great solution. NOT. Adoption is a barbaric modern day (infant adoption is relatively 'new') 'solution' for people who want a new accessory, I mean, child.

To suggest adoption as a way to get rid of the DPB is ridiculous. Come up with something else that doesn't cause lifelong implications and pain beyond imagining.

It is misguided to formulate policy based on extreme and unusual circumstances. That is exactly why discretion needs to be re-introduced instead of a blanket entitlement.

And why is it when an infertile couple want a child they just want an "accessory" but when a young girl from an dysfunctional background wants a baby for largely superficial and short-lived reasons, it's OK?

Was it hard getting to adopt a child Trevor? Is it a process based around doing the best for the child or is it a political struggle of competing ideologies? Do they still have that nonsense that like colour adopts like colour?

And why is it when an infertile couple want a child they just want an "accessory" but when a young girl from an dysfunctional background wants a baby for largely superficial and short-lived reasons, it's OK?

These are both extreme and creates a false dilemma. Speaking of the "young girl" -- I have worked with plenty of girls who have babies for largely superficial and short lived reasons.... see my earlier comment on her priorities (hair extensions, check, cell phone, check, baby formula, get from someone else...)

These are, in the states anyhow, not girls who would generally otherwise even consider adoption for their infants. Culturally, as a whole, non-kinship care is frowned upon in these circles.

Historically, the girls/women who placed infants for adoption (pre Roe v. Wade in the USA) came from the middle-class for whom having a child out of wedlock would mean shame on them and their family. Historically, the people for whom unwed births held no stigma continue the practice.

But we agree on so much here -- stopping entitlements would likely curb much of this irresponsible behavior.

Extreme circumstances or not (and yes I have met women in these very same circumstances), what you are suggesting would affect these women. Women who might be well educated and capable of caring for their child given the right support.

Maybe if the Foster care system was better cared for and set up and permanent care was set up in lieu of adoption more girls might consider doing it. Adoption is cruel and rather harsh. To those who have not experienced it from the other side of it, i.e. the side society likes to sweep under the carpet, the bad side, adoption appears a fantastic solution. But try living it on a day to day basis.

Another thing, why is it up to another woman to provide children to infertile couples? They are not responsible for their problems so why make them pay for it? When it comes to adoption, New Zealand is just soooo backward. Its laws are ancient and barbaric and in desperate need of change, or better still abolishment. In a day where secrecy is so looked down, it is no longer needed.

Children can live with people who are not their family/relatives without birth certificates needing to be changed and a whole heritage wiped. Permanent care and I mean permanent, can provide care without cutting all ties with the natural family. Yes I am sure this is not a popular view but if people really cared about the child as they harp on about, wouldn't they want the said child to have the very best of both worlds? And just one abusive person in a family doesn't mean the whole family is abusive i.e. aunties, uncles, cousins etc. 'Open' adoption is a farce, there is no such thing in New Zealand, its just a term used to dupe girls into signing papers with empty promises. How many times have I seen so called 'open' adoptions become closed. Far too many. What a joke.

Adoption is outdated. The cons far outweigh the pros and this has been studied and debated for years but also proven. People just don't want to listen as it doesn't suit them. Typical.

Anon said, "Another thing, why is it up to another woman to provide children to infertile couples? They are not responsible for their problems so why make them pay for it?"

First part - I'm not advocating compulsion.

Second part - If I understand you correctly, exactly the same argument can be made against the DPB. Strangers aren't responsible for other people's relationship problems and life choices so why make them "pay for it"?

I could cite research papers that show adopted children - IN GENERAL - tend to have outcomes somewhere between those of children brought up by two biological parents and children brought up by a single biological parent. Try the Christchurch Health and Development Study.

I am very surprised that there is "no such thing as" open adoption in New Zealand. A previous commenter must be the exception to the rule.

Joan; I agree subsidizing behaviour encourages it. Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who has written about life in the underclasses, makes a strong case for subsidizing families which he believes if implemented would encourage people to stay together. He also believes that absentee parents should be held responsible for child support.Here, here!

The problem is nanny keeps on paying kids to breed. There are no penalties for irresponsible behaviour such as crime, truancy etc. Nanny just shells out cash with no real concern for the kids welfare - why not link a contract to the benefit which includes parenting skills. Limit the benefit to a number of kids so it doesn't become a gravy train where the actual kid never gets to benefit from the money as it goes on booze or drugs in at risk families. To keep on dishing out long-term is a recipe for disaster

Open Adoption is NOT a legal agreement. NZ still operates under the old 1955 Act. There is no REAL thing as 'Open' adoption, it is all based on what adopters 'agree' to. Many make open promises and as soon as the ink is dry, turn the so-called open adoption into a closed adoption. The mother cannot do anything as there is no provision in the Act for Open Adoptions. I do know the law inside out so I know what I am talking about!

As for a child being tossed around in a dryer, no, its awful but I have heard just as many stories coming from adopted children/fostered children and about them so adoption IS NOT a guarantee that a child will have a better life. I also know many single mothers who do a damn better job than many adopters or parents.

Again, adoption is NOT the answer, you may as well go and kill the mother as leaving her alive would be worse torture and then you would have blood on your hands. I can see that would work. Not.

Anon, And I say again I am not advocating compulsion. I have heard stories of girls wanting to adopt out their babies and CYFs, who control the process, making it very difficult for them. You are ignoring freedom to choose.Even before the DPB more than half of the babies born to unmarried mothers stayed with them. People managed then. Given women's greater education, workforce participation, low unemployment, the lack of stigma, etc it would be easier to manage today.

If a woman wants to part with her baby, there are other ways to do it. Adoption IS NOT the answer especially in today's world. AS I have said before, there are other alternatives to adoption and they mean the CHILD gets the best of both worlds.

I do not advocate the DPB for women who just want to sit on their butts and not raise their children properly but you take it away from ALL and you end up separating children from mothers who for whatever reason may have no other support yet is perfectly capable of raising her child.

Contrary to what you say, if you get rid of the DPB then you are advocating compulsion as where do these mothers turn to for support? There are still many girls/women whose families turn on them for wanting to keep their child, what then are you going to put them through? Yes, its soooo easy to say take away the DPB but in reality, to do this, it means taking away the only support some mums might ever receive.

What do you suggest to put in place? Its not like we have a lovely caring society these days who want to help young mums. Neighbours barely talk to one another yet alone complete strangers. There is no real community spirit in New Zealand or Australia for these kind of things. Everyone is too busy looking after number 1: themselves.

I have yet to see a situation where Adoption in its full meaning i.e. where it completely cuts ties with families and pretends the child is 'as born' to the adopters work well. I have met too many adoptees where they have tole me they wish they had been aborted, or they hate the fact they were adopted or if they had to live away from family why they couldn't have had their real names etc. Adoption is outdated. There is no room for it in any society anymore. This is not saying children cannot be taken care of by people other than their parents, its just saying there needs to be a different system, one that lessens the pain all round.

Adoption is black and white. Its cuts off everything. The crap coming out of America suggesting mothers can go back to College etc and still keep in touch with their babies is pro adoption propaganda. Too often I have had emails from Mums such as these and it is heartbreaking to see the lies and fraud that was used to strip them of their baby.

New Zealand is very much pro adoption and this attitude is very 1950's. Forcibly taking babies from their mothers will not work; just think when they realise what has been done to them there will be a huge Mental Health bill so either way you pay for playing with Life's Natural Order.

Come up with something a little more creative where people are not forced to suffer.

It says a alot about the state of things when people are placing the "Best interests of the child" secondary to the amightly dollar. As an adoptee I find most of the right wing comments placed here offensive. May the right wing of you see how you would cope if you lost all your family and then only had strangers to rely on!!

The pro adoptionists and family haters here are simply supporting the denigration of women ; kicking a horse while its down ,so to speak. Directing criticism at young women who become mothers when women in general are still second class citizens in this patriachal society is a rather redundant exercise. Lets not hark back to the days when "witch" burning was so ardently practiced as a panacea for all society's ills. Exercise a little empathy .Get off your soap boxes .And to the great green greasy Joan and Linsay : your platitudes stink and you should shudder at yourselves for your lack of integrity . And to all those who profit from criticising women's right to abortion , to their right to keeping their babies whom they gave birth to , and to all the rights they are entitled to under the UDHR ..well you know where to go .

Dear Anonymous, May I suggest you re-read the posts again - those you criticise have repeatedly said that adoption should be voluntary and mutaully agreed and Trevor has posted such a touching story on open adoption that it has certainly changed my opinion of the process. Your outburst about women being 2nd class citizens, partriarchal society and witch hunting on the other hand just confirms my distaste for radical feminism. The only witch hunting that goes on in our society is by feminists who believe that the ends justifies any means - the most notorious case being the shameless destruction of the careers of two of the best doctors this country has ever seen - Herb Green and Dennis Bonham.

Oops, I mean't to say that Lindsay's gripe is with the compulsion for taxpayers to have to pay for women who want a baby - however you seem to have no problem with that compulsion but criticise her advocating voluntary adoption.

Why bother with trying to excacerbate inhumane policies or reintroduce draconian policies in New Zealand ? Reagan's "Global Gag Rule" which was reinstated by Bush in 2001 and then by the ex coalition Australian government via Tasmania's politician Harridine's dirty deal with the Liberal Party, ensures that this rule "denies aid funding to any group overseas which provides info about abortion or abortion services". The "rule' also ensures that the provision of contraception to women in overseas countries is very compromised . According to Australian Labor poltitician Plibersick and Washer this rule has contributed to the deaths of women in poor countries who are forced to seek backyard abortions because the bottom line is they have no other choice. This concern has been very much an issue in developed countries in the past and be damned if I am going to allow this debate on the rights of woman sink into the depths of depravity where all the good work of a few humanitarians is for nothing.

So why not get on the band wagon and exploit mothers in overseas countries ? As see it they are bereft of rights under the UDHR and have been fodder for the baby hungry ABDUCTION /adoption industry and multi corps for quite some time.The fact is when the domestic supply is low ,the baby thieves go overseas to have their demands met . So why don't you all get on the band wagon and do the same rather than address the universal issue of the very fundamental right of women to reproductive health choices and to their rights in general as citizens. Better than that ..identify yourselves for the people you really are , join the Eugenic movement and worship Hitler ...now thats a thought !

Lindsay said :"And why is it when an infertile couple want a child they just want an "accessory" but when a young girl from an dysfunctional background wants a baby for largely superficial and short-lived reasons, it's OK?"

9:20 PM

You really are in desperate mode in your feeble attempt to support your selfish motives.All prospective abductive people bleat out the same old tune of misplaced entitlement.You are NOT entitled ! At what stage in your development did you internalise the belief or convince yourself that you have a right to covet another woman's baby ? Would you take the eyes ,brain ,heart ,kidneys or any vital organ from another living human being just because you were missing those vital organs yourself? Um on second consideration you probably would think you had some God given right. You could buy yourself a few essential organs from China where its citizens are murdered to meet the demand .They don't donate their organs.The myth of donation of organs is as credible as the myth of voluntary relinquishment.Uh and don't forget to buy a baby ,compliments of the cruel one child policy. Women there are forced to have 9 month hysterotomies and left for dead or forced to abandon their babies for fear of punishment.

Kevin, I notice that the 'open' adoption story you refer to was posted by a person who has adopted, not lost their child/ren. As I have pointed out in my previous posts, there is no such thing as an open adoption in New Zealand. The 'openess' is entirely dictated by those adopting not the mother so there is nothing to prevent the openess to be completely closed!

Contrary to what you say Kevin, no one here seems to be saying Adoption should be voluntary, instead all I have seen is an advocation of stripping financial support which in fact forces adoptions where there is no support. In fact you are, in a round about way, advocating the barbaric nature of adoption as happened in the 1950's and 60's by supporting the removal of the DPB. I have not yet seen a viable alternative to this and so it should remain in place. As I have said, adoption should be abolished in the Western world as there is no need for secrecy and lies which is all that adoption embodies and promotes.

I have! There are many ways of saying it but put euphamistically its called "persoonal responsibility".

Hmmm, and if it was a moment of foolishness or where the woman had no choice as a crime was committed against her i.e. rape and she is not a believer in abortion you advocate her having no support? Obviously. Again, I say you have come up with no VIABLE alternative. All you are coming up with is something very black and white and in case you didn't know, but real life is made up of many shades of grey.

Yes, personal responsibility is something I am all for, when society starts modelling this, maybe our young people will learn it for themselves. I can also see you are a person who wants to just look after yourself, no offer of anything to help a mother and her child stay together once you strip her of her benefit. There are many single mothers out there who are decent mothers and the DPB has enabled these families to stay together. You are talking about a minority group yet the changes you would make would affect many people across the country. Please, come up with something intelligent rather than 'just take away the DPB' and 'Personal responsibility'. Its not as easy as that. You are very naive to think it is that easy and obviously have not lived much yet.

Comments policy

About Me

Lindsay Mitchell has been researching and commenting on welfare since 2001. Many of her articles have been published in mainstream media and she has appeared on radio,tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare. Lindsay is also an artist who works under commission and exhibits at Wellington, New Zealand, galleries.